Comparability and Validity of the Online and In-Person Administrations of the Inventory of Problems-29.

Citation metadata

From: Psychological Injury and Law(Vol. 14, Issue 2)
Publisher: Springer
Document Type: Report; Brief article
Length: 224 words

Document controls

Main content

Abstract :

Keywords: Teleassessment; Malingering; Symptom validity assessment; IOP-29; Online Abstract While the psychometric equivalence of computerized versus paper-and-pencil administration formats has been documented for some tests, so far very few studies have focused on the comparability and validity of test scores obtained via in-person versus remote administrations, and none of them have researched a symptom validity test (SVT). To contribute to fill this gap in the literature, we investigated the scores of the Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29) generated by various administration formats. More specifically, Study 1 evaluated the equivalence of scores from nonclinical individuals administered the IOP-29 remotely (n = 146) versus in-person via computer (n = 140) versus in-person via paper-and-pencil format (n = 140). Study 2 reviewed published IOP-29 studies conducted using remote/online versus in-person, paper-and-pencil test administrations to determine if remote testing could adversely influence the validity of IOP-29 test results. Taken together, our findings suggest that the effectiveness of the IOP-29 is preserved when alternating between face-to-face and online/remote formats. Author Affiliation: (1) Department of Psychology, University of Turin, Via Verdi 10, 10123, Torino, TO, Italy (2) Glendon College, York University, Toronto, Canada (3) Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA (4) Alliant International University -- San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA (a) luciano.giromini@unito.it Article History: Registration Date: 03/24/2021 Received Date: 02/22/2021 Accepted Date: 03/23/2021 Online Date: 04/05/2021 Byline:

Source Citation

Source Citation   

Gale Document Number: GALE|A664837469